netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] lsm,selinux: pass the family information along with xfrm flow

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.2009300909150.6592@namei.org>
Date:   Wed, 30 Sep 2020 09:09:20 +1000 (AEST)
From:   James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
cc:     selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] lsm,selinux: pass the family information along with
 xfrm flow

On Tue, 29 Sep 2020, Paul Moore wrote:

> As pointed out by Herbert in a recent related patch, the LSM hooks
> should pass the address family in addition to the xfrm flow as the
> family information is needed to safely access the flow.
> 
> While this is not technically a problem for the current LSM/SELinux
> code as it only accesses fields common to all address families, we
> should still pass the address family so that the LSM hook isn't
> inherently flawed.  An alternate solution could be to simply pass
> the LSM secid instead of flow, but this introduces the problem of
> the LSM hook callers sending the wrong secid which would be much
> worse.
> 
> Reported-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>

I'm not keen on adding a parameter which nobody is using. Perhaps a note 
in the header instead?

-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>